With a smaller budget than the watchdogs it replaced, the Care Quality
Commission has had a struggle on its hands.

Established in April 2009 as the regulator of health and social care in England, it merged three other watchdogs and took on their tasks.

But despite subsuming the Healthcare Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Mental Health Act Commission into one single body, its £164 million funding was less than that of its three predecessors combined.

The brainchild of Gordon Brown, the then prime minister, the aim was to slash the cost of regulation.

This would not be without its consequences, however.

Both supporters and detractors of the CQC have agreed it has too broad a remit, prompting many to ask if we are expecting too much of it.

Also asked to inspect more than 300 abortion clinics at short notice, it was perhaps no surprise that the system would creak beneath the strain.

A National Audit Office report in 2011 found that the level of inspections of care homes fell “significantly” after the launch of the new watchdog.

The King’s Fund commented last year: “The Commission had a troubled beginning, exacerbated by a lack of clarity about its role and a failure to provide the resources needed for it to meet the enormous and complex task it was given.

“Politicians must bear some of the responsibility for this. It is no good preaching the virtues of light touch regulation and then blaming the regulator for not taking a more interventionist approach when problems emerge.”

In April Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, said the Commission would be given additional funding to pay for its new inspection regime.